PROBLEM SUMMARY
Surveillance data and discovery: Public Defenders are overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of data that characterizes modern criminal cases. They would benefit from technical tools to process and analyze that data for their clients. Though PDs can subpoena for evidence from private companies and collect other kinds of evidence through independent investigations, the receive the majority of their data as “discovery”[1] from prosecutors–who acquire that data through partnerships with law enforcement, public surveillance systems, or directly from private companies. Thus, Public Defenders often have very little control over the format or (enormous) volume of data they receive. The two most important (and burdensome) forms of discovery were body camera footage and social media data, though Public Defenders have similar difficulties interpreting digital forensics reports, historical cell site records, email dumps, and forensic analysis. Below we describe the public defender workflow and needs around social media data.
“We get a lot of cases where the feds have gotten a warrant to Instagram. And they will send us a [25 thousand page] PDF which is not usable. We’ll say, give it to us in native format. And you know, we, we have much less, because the laws doesn’t allow us to get records from Facebook”
– Federal Public Defender, <Insert county/region>
STORYBOARD - working with novel surveillance data
1. Public defenders often receive a huge amount of data either through subpoenas or from prosecutors during discovery.
2. Public defenders don’t always have the time or technical expertise to go through the data. Thus, experts can be hired to help.
3. Without an expert, public defenders often rely on paralegals to help organize and make sense of the data.
4. From the data, public defenders and paralegals need to find and filter for relevant information, such as text exchanges between defendant and a specific person within a particular time frame. Within that, they then look for information that can be used as evidence, such as a specific emoji as indication of personalized use of language.
5. Public defenders and paralegals have to collate data from different sources, such as prosecutors and different private social media companies.
6. Ideally, any meaningful or relevant data should be easily managable so that public defenders can easily present them in court
NEEDS Assessment
STEP
ISSUES
NEEDS
1. Receiving data either through subpoenas or from prosecutors during discovery
Social media companies can take a while to respond to subpoenas, giving PDs less time to sieve through their data
PDs most commonly receive data from prosecutors through discovery, but that data can come in more or less parseable many formats
PDs may receive data in proprietary formats. Without access to the proprietary technology, they may be unable to access the data . Examples include proprietary surveillance video software.
Data in standardized and parseable formats
Ability to better manage and understand raw data
2. Hiring experts to go through the data
Hiring experts can be very expensive, especially given the limited funds given to public defense offices.
Trustworthy and reliable experts can be hard to find. Many PDs acquire experts through word-of-mouth, though there is no comprehensive system for PDs to share resources on experts.
Access to an affordable and reliable pool of technical experts, including those recommended by other PDs
Understanding of what qualifications constitute a knowledgeable expert in a particular domain